The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gerald Cartmell. Charlie Mellon motioned and Dave Hall seconded to accept the minutes of May 20, 2010 as written. The motion passed with a 4 – 0 vote. The first order of business was the new proposed ballot for Variances and for Special Exception Uses. Director Rogers asked the board if they had any questions about the ballot. Charlie Mellon asked for clarification. Joe then explained that the new ballots conform with both state statute and our Ordinance, the old ballots do not. The new ballots are more flexible as some questions can be answered negatively and the petition can still be granted based on the weight the member gives to each answer, and vice versa. A negative answer to any one of the state required questions, marked with an asterisk, mandates a denial of the request. Dave Hall moved to vote with a second by Charlie Mellon. A hand count was taken. One vote (Shaker Hites) was in favor of the new ballot; 3 votes (Gerald Cartmell, Dave Hall, Charlie Mellon) voted against the new ballot, choosing to keep the current noncompliant ballot.

The next order of business was in regards to Variance #2840. The Area Plan Office determined the successive application to hold considerable enough new grounds to deem it appropriate to be brought before the board within the one year waiting period. Section 12.3.3 of the Ordinance requires the applicant to present grounds warranting reconsideration of the application prior to the board hearing the request. Attorney Dow Dellinger presented such grounds as required, such as procedural and ordinance changes that had taken place resulting in elimination of two of the three variances listed on the previous request. Shaker Hites motioned to vote on whether to hear the request and Charlie Mellon seconded. A hand vote of 4 – 0 approved the hearing of Variance 2840.

#2840 Four Soar, LLC; ;

Violation: None

Request:

Director Rogers pointed out an error in the Analysis section of the staff report. It should have said the addition would extend 6’ beyond the current foundation, not 4’ beyond. He also mentioned the 12’ requested rear setback would only locate the addition 1’ closer to the property line than the current foundation at a 13’ setback. Following explanation and photos of the variance request by Director Rogers along with stating no objections to the request were received by the Area Plan Office and reading into the record of one letter of approval from Raymond R. Stuck, the abutting neighbor, the floor was turned over to Dow Dellinger, attorney for the applicant. Attorney Dellinger noted that the Van Weelden’s (owners) and Larry Norris (contractor) were present to answer any questions. He went on to point out that the reason for the 6’ addition was primarily to allow room to reconstruct a very steep, narrow staircase inside into a safe staircase that conforms to building code. This takes a huge amount of floor space from inside the structure to accomplish, however, only requires the foundation to be one foot closer to the neighboring property than the current foundation, which is a minimum departure from the requirements. Shaker Hites motioned to vote on the request; Charlie Mellon seconded. Result: four votes cast; 4 grant; 0 deny.

Findings of Fact

1. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. 4-0

2. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 4-0

3. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. 4-0

4. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question. 4-0

5. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain. 4-0

6. The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance. In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and building. 4-0

****

#2841 Trilogy Health Services, LLC;

Violation:

Request:

Director Rogers described the request and stated that his office had received no opposition or support in regards to the variance request. He mentioned Ordinance allows for the number of ground signs the applicant would like to erect, however, they are only allowed at any main entrance point. The applicant requests to locate two ground signs within the campus. The floor was turned over to Scott Hollinger who was present to represent the applicant. Mr. Hollinger stated the two signs in question are simply building identification signs. Such signs are allowed by Ordinance as wall signs. The practical difficulty with using wall signs is that, because of the canopies at the doors, people would be required to park and walk up to the building to see the signs. If ground signs are allowed, people will be able to see the signs before they park. Dave Hall moved to vote. Shaker Hites seconded. Result: four votes cast; 4 grant; 0 deny.

Findings of Fact

1. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. 4-0

2. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 4-0

3. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. 4-0

4. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question. 4-0

5. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain. 4-0

6. The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance. In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and building. 4-0

The request was explained by Director Rogers. He requested a 10’ space be left between the proposed garage and the existing structure for emergency vehicles. TLRSD requires structures to be a minimum of 5’ from their grinder and line. The Area Plan Office has received no feedback regarding this request. Sean Sternfeldt was present to answer questions. He explained he will be replacing the wood retaining wall with solid concrete and the driveway with millstone. His new driveway will be routed so that he will no longer have to cross his neighbor’s property to get to his property. He will also be fixing the grading and improving the drainage. He stated that within the last week, there was a water emergency in the neighborhood and several emergency vehicles arrived. The DNR was in agreement with and very pleased to hear he would be repairing the retaining wall and leaving a 10’ space between structures to allow for ambulance access. A motion from Dave Hall with a second by Charlie Mellon began the voting process. Result: four votes cast; 3 grant; 1 deny.

Findings of Fact

1. The variance requested does not essentially alter the character of the surrounding area. 4-0

2. The granting of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. 4-0

3. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance request will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. 4-0

4. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and district but which is denied to the property in question. 4-0

5. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property, provided that the situation is not self-imposed or that the need for the development standard variance is not based on a perceived reduction of, or restriction on, economic gain. 4-0

6. The granting of a variance would be a minimal departure from the strict application of the provisions of the zoning ordinance. In other words, the variance will be the minimum necessary to permit a reasonable use of the land and building. 3-1 Comment: Almost un-buildable size on the lot.

****

As there was no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm.

****

Respectfully submitted,

________________________________________

Gayle E. Rogers, Secretary

Area Board of Zoning Appeals

________________________________________

Joseph W. Rogers, Director

White County Area Plan Commission

Document Prepared By: Gayle E. Rogers, White County Area Plan

"I AFFIRM, UNDER THE PENALTIES FOR PERJURY, THAT I HAVE TAKEN REASONABLE CARE TO REDACT EACH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IN THIS DOCUMENT, UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW." ________________________________

A 3’ side and 5’ rear setback to build a garage; 6’ side and 20’ rear are required; can not build in conformance because of location of grinder system.
Installation of three ground signs rather than one allowed by Ordinance None SE NE Section 5, Township 26 North, Range 3 West containing 26.89 Acres, more or less, in Union Township, White County, Indiana, more commonly known as 814 S. Sixth Street, Monticello. Rearsetback of 12’ to build a 6’ addition to the home to provide stability and safety to the existing structure along with improving the architectural design and balance. The required rear setback in an L-1 zoning district is 20’. That part of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 28 North, Range 3 West of the Second Principal Meridian in Liberty Township, White County, Indiana containing 0.117 of an Acre, more or less; more commonly described as 6586 N East Shafer Drive, Monticello.